Perspectives

(092112)

Humanity's Thinking ... Shifts Over Time ... and Darwin's Dilemma

Questions:

What
did scientists conclude about life's origin
before the mid 1800's—prior to Darwin
and prior to evolution theory?

What
characterizes the philosophical environment
and the thought world in Darwin's day?

If
you could have heard Charles Darwin speak—to
meet this man in person—would you invest
yourself, your beliefs, in what this person
said?

What
do you know of the personal struggles of
Darwin or for that matter of Victorian thinkers
of his day?

Was evolution theory a foregone conclusion
from the time of its first presentation?

Has
humanity's thinking changed from the earliest
thinkers—throughout the generations—to
the present time?

Does
a review of the standing scientific evidence
raise doubts or new questions concerning
origins?

What
happens to our view of life if the evidence
reveals—even demands—a reasonable
yet dramatic shift in viewpoint?

Short Answer:

The
world view before the Victorian Era—before
Darwin, Wallace, et al.—included perspectives
on design and a Divine Presence as being responsible
for the universe and all that is in it. So
too, many thought of the universe as infinite
and ageless. Created life simply revealed an
order that was not the result of randomness
nor chance. For example, Linnaeus is often
cited as a creationist, yet he did a good measure
of work as a scientist in classifying organisms.
Yet, by the mid 1800s there came a period of
'enlightenment' and thinking that segregated
the Divine from the material—natural causes
seemed responsible for more and more of the
observable world. There was a struggle to define
material and natural causes in some logical
scheme which in turn seemed to fit what Darwin,
Wallace and others offered publicly—on
evolution—at scientific meetings and in
print.

However
evolution theory was not without challenge. We rarely hear this part of history. We rarely
hear about Darwin's struggle with the issue
of natural evil. Did you realize he struggled
with morality as well as the biology? Why didn't we hear about this in biology class?
Yet the social environment in his day was primed
to adopt the theory and was less concerned
with critically thinking about the evidence.
In some cases critical points raised in open
discussion were simply excused. There was then
a mix of philosophy as well as science at play.
Had the evolutionists of the 1800s a look at
today's data, the entire genesis and acceptance
of evolution theory would have been quickly
reversed. This reversal is hard to come by
even today, because the philosophical road
has long been traveled with the standard story on evolution—some say it's simply
a fact. Textbooks don't even offer a hint of
what might have happened if Darwin had access
to more information. But today you have such
access.

Next the evidence for heredity—discovered
in the early 1900s—appeared to fit with
early suppositions on evolution. A mental fit
was envisioned—this is called neo-Darwinism.
This only served to extrapolate evolution theory's
momentum generated by the Victorian thinkers.
However, there is a challenge being leveraged
today that brings back ideas on design—now
with a revival force resting on new perspectives,
greater data resources, and a even closer look
at evidence Darwin used in his day. The new
evidence—examined in an objective light—isn't
merely more of a foregone conclusive nature
for evolution's standard story.

The
short answer is that the pendulum is swinging back with new force and yet
there is resistance. The new force builds on intelligent design arguments,
evidence from information science, molecular evidence, and scientists building
a new testable hypothesis—concerning
origins that science previously ignored—all this builds a broader base
than what evolution theory rests on today. And when this all finally
takes center stage the debates on public education will reach an entirely
new level. Change is certainly in the offing! Again, the resistance noted
above comes from quarters in the scientific community and popular media that
are unwilling [philosophically] or are slow to recognize evidence [from science
itself] that reveals if and where evolution theory fails.

If
Darwin were alive today, he would be asking
us to think along the lines of the new evidence.
The standard story would be shifting again
and with good reason. Darwin would agree—Darwin
would demand the story be told by the best
available evidence. If he did not do so,
then what kind of scientist would he have been?

Consider This:

Shifts in thinking
occur. Models for how things work are at times identified as paradigms. Paradigm
shifts are rare or ideally considered unlikely because the paradigm's explanation
is the solid model or best fit for the evidence on hand. WindowView leads
to a summary exercise that asks you to think about current paradigms. Looking
at how thinking has and will shift is part of this exercise!

Ancient thinkers first
concluded there is a design in and a Divine presence behind the order of the
universe. Later thinking brought humanity to a material-based theory—everything
is thus explained by causes and effects within nature.

A
shift back toward the concept of design is in part what you will find
occurring today. The latter move is just now gaining momentum, but there
is delay in the process because of prejudices (especially) built into
western thought. As scientific evidence opens the discussion and the
prejudices are put aside the entire view on origins takes a dramatic
shift. Yes, we live in a material world, but our origins come with more
than a material explanation!

Darwin wasn't
the first to think about evolution. But he uniquely fought a battle within
himself that in part reflected how Victorians wrestled with concepts of
God; good and evil; and the natural world. Darwin didn't just go observe
plants, animals, insects, etc. He wrestled with how nature exhibited waste,
excess, and an apparent natural evil that he could not ascribe to a Divine
Intelligence. Darwin responded to the arguments concerning design by seeing
imperfections in nature. And in examples of behaviors and instinct came
a form of evil that he traded off against questions concerning morality.

The
world of biology is, to be sure, full of beauty and wonder. But there
also seem to be anomalies and inefficiencies. Darwin was concerned,
for example, that of tons of pollen go to waste every year, that some
species are ill adapted for their environments, that ants make slaves
of other ants, and that parasites feed off their victims. He tried
to make sense of what seemed to be the evil side of nature. "What
a book a devil's chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering,
low, and horribly cruel works of a nature," he concluded in a letter
to a friend. Hunter (DG) Page 10

Darwin, like many readers
and thinkers in his day, encountered Milton's Paradise Lost. Reflecting
on this gives us a clue as to what people where thinking back then.

The
main purpose of Paradise Lost was to solve the problem of evil.
If God is loving and all powerful, why does he allow evil to exist
at all? Milton tried to explain the purposes of God, or as he put
it, "justify the ways of God to man." His solution was that God needed
to let humans choose between good and evil so he could separate the
good from the bad. Although this solution maintained God's purity,
it also made him a somewhat passive, distanced from the events of
history. This epic tale is in many ways a telling signpost of where
the modern era was going with its view of God and creation. Creation
was on its own, rather than under God's influence and control. Hunter (DG) Page 12

The quotes presented
here by Cornelius Hunter come from his recent book entitled Darwin's
God. Hunter reveals a struggle that goes beyond questions on evolution
as science alone. There are distinct signs that Darwin and many around him
were trying to compartment God into some neat partition within human reality.
This quickly reveals a vain exercise that places blinders on whatever truth
is to rationalize life defined by a human dictated comfort zone. Yet to think
about human existence begs the questions of why things are what they are in
nature as well as within the human domain.

An
important similarity between Darwin and Milton should not be missed.
The two are sometimes contrasted, since Darwin was rapidly moving
toward a naturalistic explanation of the world, whereas Milton saw
God as the creative force of the world. But both men were dealing
with the problem of evil—Milton with moral evil and Darwin with
natural evil—and both found solutions by distancing God from
the evil. And most important, the two held similar conceptions of
God. Hunter (DG) Page 12

How many students are
told this side of the story. Might we have simply thought Darwin launched
off into the academic pursuit of evolutionary origins. Instead, Darwin struggled
with a multiplicity of issues ... many now masked by sterile presentations
in textbooks. But these issues are hardly beyond our understanding as humans.
We too seek to explain life as we experience and grow through time. This indeed
makes Darwin look all the more human—as one among us—as opposed
to some defiant academic living in an ivory tower!

...
Darwin wrote to a friend: "There seems to me too much misery in the
world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God
would have designedly created the [ parasitic wasp ] with the express
intention of their feeding within a the living bodies of caterpillars,
or that the cat should play with mice." Hunter
(DG) Page 12

Darwin
had a long list of biological quandaries that did not fit with a view
of God that was popular in his day. There was, for example, the problem
of hybrids. Why should species cross so easily if they were created
separately? ...
Nature
seemed to lack precision and economy in design and was often "inexplicable
on the theory of creation." In addition to this growing list of imperfections
and mistakes, Darwin questioned the way the various species were designed.
He observed, on the one hand, that different species use "an almost
infinite diversity of means" for the same task and that this should
not be the case if each species had been independently created by
a single Creator. On the other hand, Darwin observed that different
species use similar means for different tasks. This to, he argued,
does not fit with the theory of divine creation. ... the point is that Darwin was significantly motivated by nonscientific
premises. He had a specific notion of God in view, and as it had for
Milton, that view defined the framework of his thinking. ... God's
world had to fit into certain specific criteria that humans had devised. Hunter (DG) Page 13

So, who is placing
limits on the potential for an intelligent agency? What limit is to be placed
on the degree of variation or diversity of life ... Darwin's limits? We may
be tempted to resist the notion that reality is actually quite extra ordinary.
In this context our conclusions are brought down to the level of what seems
the ordinary, the mundane, the day-to-day reality. If that happens, then ...

...
Creation doesn't seem very divine, so evolution must be true. Evolution
is a solution to the age-old problem of evil. The problem of evil states
that if God is all-powerful and all-good, then he should not allow evil
to exist. For centuries theologians and philosophers have tried to solve
this problem. As Milton showed in Paradise Lost, moral evil can
be explained as the results of human autonomy, but natural evil is more
difficult to rationalize. The seventeenth century philosopher, Gottfried
Leibniz was interested in the problem of evil. He
coined the term theodicy for any explanation to the problem.
By Darwin's day the list of such explanations was growing. One strategy
was to try to show that God was somehow disconnected from creation.
Natural evil arose not from God's direction but from an imperfect linkage
between Creator and creation. Hunter (DG) Page
14

Acknowledging that
evil exists in the presence of the Divine seems a contraction in terms and
certainly our wrestling with this issue is not new. But the conclusions we
come to may also conflict with a greater purpose ... something deserving our
attention. This purpose itself may appeal to what is extra ordinary. We can't
simply be in the ordinary state of mind unless we want only ordinary answers—simply
naturalistic answers. And so others have wrestled with the issue of evil and
reflected concerns we can now read ...

Darwin's
concern with the problem of natural evil is apparent in his notebooks and his published works. His theodicy had a strong scientific flavor,
to the point that most readers lost sight of the embedded metaphysical
presuppositions.

... Positing
natural selection operating in an unguided fashion on a natural biological
diversity was Darwin's unique solution. But his overall approach,
to distance God from evil, was predictable. Ù For the eighteenth century
philosopher Immanuel Kant, our innate moral sense is sufficient to
prove the existence of God. Hunter (DG) Page
14

Let's stop and survey
the landscape for a moment. As noted above, many thinkers placed the universe
in infinite time and space with a Creator responsible for the cosmos and all
life. The Victorian era came and evolution theory made for a big shift!

This
was a seed which was ultimately to flower in The Origin of Species into a new and revolutionary view of the living world which implied
that all the diversity of life on Earth had resulted from natural
and random processes and not, as was previously believed, from the
creative activity of God. The acceptance of this great claim and the
consequent elimination of God from nature was to play a decisive role
in the secularization of western society. The voyage on the Beagle was therefore a journey of awesome significance. Its objective was
to survey Patagonia; its result was to shake the foundation of western
thought. Denton (ETC) Page 17

So, we are not only
looking at a shift from one main paradigm to another, here we see a backdrop
revealing some of what Darwin used to rationalize evolution. And it wasn't
simply biology!

And what were people
all around Darwin thinking? The characterization of the Creator was also shifting.
The technicalities of the biblical account was overridden by other human-centric
thinking.

The
problem was aggravated by the rather two-dimensional God the Victorians
had in view. It was a tradition that had been building for centuries,
and by Darwin's day the popular conception of God was a very pleasant
one. Positive divine attributes such as wisdom and benevolence were
emphasized to the point that God's wrath and use of evil were rarely
considered.

Few
people promoted this doctrine of God more avidly than the orthodox
Sedgwick. Sedgwick often spoke of God's power, wisdom, and goodness.
His main point of application was how these positive attributes are
manifest in creation. The student of nature, according to Sedgwick,
should find the natural world full of beauty, harmony, symmetry, and
order. Biology was full of beautiful form and perfect mechanism "exactly
fitted to the vital functions of the being." And it was all driven
by God's wonderful laws: ... Hunter (DG) Page 15

Sedgwick then notes
the laws of nature also provide a witness to God's wisdom, power, and presence.
Nature then falls under the umbrella of the greater reality. Beauty in nature
as a testimony for an Intelligent Designer at work ... why is such a notion
discouraged? Perhaps because this is NOT 'scientific.' But how much of your
thought life is strictly scientific? What then is this requirement but philosophy
or opinion? The fact is wonder has escaped Westerners; yet wonder is a tool
of powerful perspective.

Darwin's
theory of evolution was very much a solution to the problem of natural
evil—a theodicy. The problem had confounded thinkers for centuries.
They needed to distance God to clear him of any evil doings. Darwin
solved the problem by coming up with a natural law that he argued
could account for evil. Natural selection, operating blindly on a
pool of biological diversity, according to Darwin, could produce nature's
carnage and waste.

Darwin's solution
distanced God from creation to the point that God was unnecessary.
... God may have created the world, but ever since that point it has
run according to impersonal natural laws that may now and then produce
natural evil.

Darwin may
have solved the problem of how nature's evil could arise without God,
but what about Sedgwick's morality? Though he respected Darwin's effort,
Sedgwick criticized his theory of evolution scathingly. Predictably
enough, the main complaint was that by distancing God, Darwin was
disregarding the moral imperative that was so obvious to Sedgwick. Hunter (DG) Page 16

The existence
of evil seems to contradict God, but the existence of our deep moral
sense seems to confirm God.Hunter (DG)
Page 18

Darwin's
Dilemma!

So
Darwin made a trade off, yet he was left with
a dilemma. And while this reflects a problem
based on morality, it reflects a similar dilemma
in what science was unable to resolve in other
problem areas as well.

As
Hunter notes, Darwin reconciled a metaphysical
dilemma that troubled him, but not Sedgwick.
But if natural evil was resolved, then what
was one to do about morality? Where does moral
law come from? One dilemma remained!

The
point is simple and must be made. Darwin did
not think solely in terms of biology. He had
been trained in theology, traveled the globe
to gather biological specimens, talked with
other Victorian era thinkers, and experienced
a full complement of arguments. We just don't
see a complete treatment of all this when the
standard evolution story is told. Natural evil
is just not an issue in the textbooks. But
it was an issue for Darwin and this entered
into his broader view on life and formulating
a theory to explain how life presents us with
all the species we see.

The Victorians

The
temptation here is to make endless quotes from
Hunter's text. However, we'll let you find
a copy of Darwin's
God at your library or favorite bookseller.
The following selected quotes are given to
indicate that the Victorian era represents
a time when humanity in many ways chose its
own way of thinking—in many instances
aside of what scientific evidence or scriptural
texts would provide.

How
we see the world is so often beset by our assumptions.
Hunter notes these are like "metaphysical
spectacles which influence how we see the world"
(Hunter (DG) Page 127)
and this is true for evolution. Metaphysics
shaped thinking throughout time created a comfort
zone for the nineteenth century thinkers who
were unaware that they were wearing these 'spectacles.'
But all the while, from this point of view,
evolution is claimed objective and entirely
scientific.

There is a disparity between evolution's
claims of opportunity and its use of
metaphysics. ... In
the nineteenth century, the opinion
among intellectuals that God was superfluous
in philosophy and science grew from
a minority position to the consensus.
One might think it was a time of remarkable
change, but there was a silent threat
of constancy that ran throughout this
great transition. Though God became
unnecessary, the popular concept of
God remained basically intact. Darwin
lead to a God who was not necessary,
and at the end of the century Frederick
Nietzsche declared that God was dead.
For Nietzsche humanity was finally
free of God, but what was less obvious
was that humanity was not free of the
religious premises on which the movement
was built. In one cannot disprove God
without first assuming something about
God. Humans may have been free of God,
but they were not free of their presuppositions
about God. Hunter
(DG) Page 127

The
shift in world view on origins, on the role
or presence of an Intelligent Designer (Creator),
and move toward a materialism was not sudden.
But evolution theory tended to lock in the
thinking. First, a drift in thought, then locking
in a shift in perspective with an apparent
naturalistic explanation (evolution).

There
was a great diversity of religious belief
in Darwin's time, ranging from romanticism
and existentialism to evangelicalism
and revivalism. One common thread running
through most of this diversity was a
decidedly human centered outlook. ...
People were religious, but they tended
to focus on themselves more than on God. Hunter (DG) Page
128

Materialism and naturalism
said this place seems to explain itself without any help from the outside
...

As
a scientists began to see the universe
run by a fixed laws, man began to wonder
if there was any need, or indeed any
place, for a Divine Ruler. The fixed
laws seem to be enough to run the universe.
One could wonder, is the universe run
and by a Divine Being, or does it run
a by itself? Are we humans the product
of a Divine Creation set on this earth
to fill some a purpose? Or are we merely
a product of the laws of nature, like
a rock falling off a cliff? There were
advantages to doing away with the need
for a Divine Ruler: man would then
be answerable only to himself and not
to some Higher Authority. Spetner (NBC) Page 2

We
strongly recommend a reading of Hunter's text
as he explores more of the implications for
the panorama of belief in the Victorian era.
This is important reading and helps us to think
critically about what we, as individuals, might
do to assess our own thoughts on life, existence,
and the influence Darwinism has had on society,
on science, and even on religious belief today.

Darwin's
Solution for natural evil

We
won't say periods of history lock in clear
stereotypes on thought. The world is awash
with varied beliefs. But certainly the theory
of evolution stepped into the spot light and
subsequently has enjoyed much attention. But
what was behind the idea of evolution that
made it work so well?

Hunter notes ...

As
with Milton, Darwin's thought of was
influenced by his concept of God. Darwin
believed that God would not have created
the biological world as we find it
and saw evolution as a way around this
problem. And just as Milton's theodicy
in many ways reflected the seventeenth
century view of God, Darwin's evolution
was consistent with the Victorian's
religious beliefs. But as always, there
was a spectrum of such beliefs. For
many Victorians the problem of evil
was critical, but for others such as
Sedgwick, the problem of morality was
more important. For our purposes, what
is important is that the metaphysics
underlying evolution and run deep.
Darwin's theory did not obviate metaphysics,
it incorporated a particular metaphysic. Hunter (DG) Page
142

Denton adds ...

It
was because Darwinian theory broke man's
link with God and set him adrift in a
cosmos without purpose or end that its
impact was so fundamental. No other intellectual
revolution in modern times (with possible
exception of the Copernican) so profoundly
affected the way men viewed themselves
and their place in the universe. Denton (ETC) Page 67

Denton
notes that over time Darwinism 'consolidated
into dogma' and the idea of 'continuity' surfaced
throughout all aspects of biology. The idea
of discontinuities in nature faded by lack
of attention not by fact. There became a state
of no longer discussing evolution by reference
to the facts of nature.

Increasingly,
it's highly theoretical and metaphysical
nature was forgotten, and gradually
Darwinian concepts came to permeate
every aspect of biological thought
so that today all biological phenomena
are interpreted in Darwinian terms
and every professional biologist is
subject throughout his working life
to continued affirmation of the truth
of Darwinian theory. Denton
(ETC) Page 74

And
the apparent truth of Darwinism leads to the
assumption of a theory as being fact. If this
is the case, then why isn't this clearly fact?
Dr. Dembski provides an initial short list
of issues that counter this notion of evolution
theory as fact:

The
following problems have proven utterly
intractable not only for the mutation-selection
mechanism but also for any other undirected
natural process proposed to date: the
origin of life, the origin of the genetic
code, the origin of multicellular a
life, the origin of sexuality, the
absence of transitional forms in the
fossil record, the biological big bang
that occurred in the Cambrian era,
the development of complex organ systems
and the development of irreducibly
complex molecular machines. These are
just a few of the more serious difficulties
that confront every theory of evolution
that posits only undirected natural
processes. Dembski (MC) Page 22

Keep exploring ...
a number of these issues are considered on additional pages here in the Science
Area of WindowView.

The
Paradigm is About to Shift

Through
this WindowView one may observe a number of
points that stand in favor of design arguments.
This is not an unfamiliar topic to Darwin,
for before Darwin—back to the ancient
thinkers and those contemporary to Darwin himself—there
was much credit given to a universe by design.
But that raised the specter of having to acknowledge
a Designer. For some this thought brings discomfort.
So any evidence that avoids the need of a Designer
was brought to light in an era of Victorian
thinking that was ready for a new avenue of
thought. That pathway was cloaked in rational
thought, based on sensory observations, rooted
in nature and justified by scientific laws
that seemed to cover the entire material existence.

The Origin of Species radically changed
the conventional wisdom of Western civilization.
Until about a hundred and thirty years
ago, conventional wisdom held man's origin
to be supernatural. It held that all
life was created by a Power Who made
each form of life separately. To western
man that Power was the Creator and Ruler
of the universe. With the rise of science
and scientific method, opinions slowly
began to shift. Kepler, Copernicus, and
Galileo showed that the earth was not
the center of the universe. Newton showed
that the earth, the moon, and the planets
moved through the heavens under fixed
laws; indeed, Newton's laws could explain
the motion of bodies on earth as well
as in the heavens. Spetner
(NBC) Page 1

But
again, now we are awakening to a lack of evidence
for the Darwinian sphere of thought. The trend
is there, slow in being accepted, but unavoidably
rising to the public's attention. And once
the root of this reality grows beyond former
assumptions, then paradigms will shift to the
sphere containing both science and theology.
The difference is that scientific evidence
doesn't change, but it enters the discussion
to bring us all full circle to something humanity
previously observed, embraced, and understood—even
with less evidence than we have today.

The
general shift from design to evolution moved
humanity to material explanations. A physical
cause elicits a material response. If it wee
all so simple evolution would have a complete
explanation. But embracing evolution, gradualism,
and naturalism comes with a price. For example,
changes in our understanding of science affect
the population as a whole. And changes in science,
philosophy and theology however vast are only
the beginning. Materialism is not limited in
its implications to natural science. Materialism
is a way of understanding day to day existence
and responding to it. Materialism has influenced
public standards and policies on morals, law
and criminology, education, medicine, psychology,
race relations, the environment, and many other
areas.

It
can be argued that materialism is a major
source of the demoralization of the twentieth
century. Materialism's explicit denial
not just of design but also the possibility
of scientific evidence for design has
done untold damage to the normative legacy
of Judeo-Christian ethics. A world without
design is a world without inherent meaning.
In such a world, to quote Yeats, "things
fall apart; the center cannot hold." Chapman
(MC) Page 457

Evolution
theory relieves us of any purpose or meaning.
The theory blocks investigation of other evidence
that supports design. If that evidence keeps
coming, then we are facing he realization of
finally seeing the other part of life's illusive
but very real fullness.

If design, then what is the intelligent agency
from which this design arises? And if our existence
has a purpose, then into what relationship
must we be engaged in to see where this all
leads us. If we are not mere happenstance products
of some cold impersonal purposeless event,
then we must look for the most important personal
relationship that is part of the intention
behind design. Design is then a signpost and
it is saying something. Relationship is at
the core of what WindowView examines—in
the hope you will see how this applies to you.
You ultimately recognize that relationship
by your own process of looking. But if a moment
of viewing evidence for origins locks in evidence
for design, then move on with the question
of who is the Designer. We are not the last
word on this issue at hand. We need a measure
of humility and hold respect high. Yet we need
a level playing field. Bias and personal agendas
have for too long played out their undue influence.
Thinking may shift ever so slowly, but being
open to a broader view is important. This is
in part captured by Chapman's closing remarks
at the symposium on Mere Creation (held November
14-17,1996):

... if you
are looking for the final wisdom on the subject of origins and it design,
you will not find it here. If you are looking for the final wisdom on
the implications of design for culture, you'll not find it here. People
of many backgrounds and convictions—and certainly scholars and
critics who adhere to diverse faiths or no faith that all—will
need to enter this debate and contribute to it. The important thing
for now is that materialism can no longer be assumed unquestioningly
and that intelligent design is on the table for discussion. Chapman
(MC) Page 459

The WindowView is more
than thoughts on design. Yet design is on the table—even here—and
in the view ... as we look on and continue to build an array perspectives.

Added
Perspective:

Effective
science,
perhaps the most effective thinking, is best
supported when multiple perspectives and multiple
sources of evidence are used to build an understanding. Here we see a need to resolve a dilemma. The
need then spills over into a scientific arena
that ultimately becomes influenced by limitation
and belief that go beyond science alone. This
lead humanity to shift its beliefs. This point
is often skipped in the popular media. This
reflection is then an important part of a truly
multifaceted story.

Quotations
from "Mere Creation" (MC) edited
by William A. Dembski are used by permission
of InterVarsity Press, P.O. Box 1400, Downers
Grove, IL 60515. www.ivpress.com All rights
reserved. No portion of this material may be
used without permission from InterVarsity Press.

Quotations
from "Not By Chance" (NBC) written
by L. Spetner, are used by permission granted
by Dr. Lee Spetner.

The WindowView drops many of the typical presumptions to take another look. What does scientific data tell us if we start without assumptions? And ... how contiguous is science information if examined along with scriptural perspectives provided by the Bible? The Bible is the only religious or holy book we know of that is in fact consistent with science. While not a textbook, the Scriptures are either contradictory or complementary to scientific perspectives. Have you looked at these perspectives? To see 'Science and Scripture in Harmony' is to reveal life, reality, and your future.

Writer / Editor: Dr. T. Peterson,
Director, WindowView.org

(090204)

For a general listing of books, visit the WindowView Book Page for: Science and Scripture .

References of Interest

Step Up To Life

Time spent looking ... through a window on life and choice ... brings the opportunity to see in a new light. The offer for you to Step Up To Life is presented on many of the web pages at WindowView. Without further explanation we offer you the steps here ... knowing that depending on what you have seen or may yet explore in the window ... these steps will be the most important of your life ...